OCZ Vertex 4 Review (128GB), Firmware 1.4/1.5 Tested
by Kristian Vättö on August 4, 2012 10:00 AM ESTRandom Read/Write Speed
The four corners of SSD performance are as follows: random read, random write, sequential read and sequential write speed. Random accesses are generally small in size, while sequential accesses tend to be larger and thus we have the four Iometer tests we use in all of our reviews. Our first test writes 4KB in a completely random pattern over an 8GB space of the drive to simulate the sort of random access that you'd see on an OS drive (even this is more stressful than a normal desktop user would see).
We perform three concurrent IOs and run the test for 3 minutes. The results reported are in average MB/s over the entire time. We use both standard pseudo randomly generated data for each write as well as fully random data to show you both the maximum and minimum performance offered by SandForce based drives in these tests. The average performance of SF drives will likely be somewhere in between the two values for each drive you see in the graphs. For an understanding of why this matters, read our original SandForce article.
.
Neither the 1.4 or 1.5 firmware promised any improvements regarding random read/write performance.
As for the 128GB model, which is new in our tests, its random read/write performance is actually on-par with 256GB and 512GB capacities. This is a pleasant surprise the difference between the 128GB and 256GB capacities in many families can be quite substantial (e.g. Samsung's SSD 830).
Sequential Read/Write Speed
To measure sequential performance we ran a one minute long 128KB sequential test over the entire span of the drive at a queue depth of 1. The results reported are in average MB/s over the entire test length.
It's relieving to look at the graph above. It's now a fact that the 1.4 firmware fixes the sequential read speed at low queue depths issue. Not only does the firmware fix the issue, the sequential read performance is also very good.
OCZ was promising increased sequential write performance for all models with the 1.5 firmware but at least in Iometer, at low queue depths, the difference is negligible. We'll take a look at AS-SSD and ATTO at higher queue depths next.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
60 Comments
View All Comments
ewood - Monday, August 6, 2012 - link
You shouldn't feel cheated if you bought the drive thinking read performance was corrected. The increase in read performance does not go away when going from performance mode to storage mode; only write performance in affected. So if you chose to buy the drive when the read performance was corrected you should see those gains regardless of used capacity of the drive. And as a side benefit if less than 50% of the drive is used you also get increased write performance.MadAd - Wednesday, August 8, 2012 - link
the point of a test is to create an environment to repeat runs and compare the differences between them, the fact it wasnt X full or Y empty isnt an issue as long as all drives are treated the same waywe arent concerned if the tests dont reflect what a users drive looks like, users vary, what concerns us is if the tests can be used as a comparison from one drive to another, and we see that they can.
althaz - Saturday, August 4, 2012 - link
I only keep my 240Gb SSD half full. I have Windows, Office, my browser, Broodwar and Starcraft 2 on it and that is pretty much all.I would suggest that most people don't actually put that much stuff on their SSD, unless it is in a laptop.
On a 128Gb drive, though you are more likely to have it at least 3/4 full.
doubledeej - Saturday, August 4, 2012 - link
But most people aren't buying excess capacity they don't intend to use. If you're never going to use more than half of your drive, why waste the extra money (nearly double in many cases) on space that is just going to go to waste?Most people will buy a drive sized appropriately for their needs, and nothing more, when it comes to SSDs. Especially since the prices just keep dropping and performance keeps improving. Buy what you need now, and upgrade later if you need to.
mattlach - Monday, August 6, 2012 - link
Exactly.I use an SSD for my operating system, programs, games and a few files I am currently working on. Everything else gets stored on my NAS.
I opted for a 240GB SSD this time around as my old 120GB Agility was a little tight for this purpose, and I was running out of space.
With my usage model, I will likely not come even close to filling the 256GB drive, but I'll likely go just over the 50% mark, which is why I am concerned.
MrSpadge - Sunday, August 5, 2012 - link
Sure, SSDs are faster when not fully loaded. But paying 2x as much for double capacity, just for this little performance bonus? Not a good value proposition.sequoia464 - Saturday, August 4, 2012 - link
Any chance of filling the 128 model up over 50% and running the tests over again?Most of my drives are more than 50%, it would be nice to know what the final usage speeds will actally be for these drives once they get some of their capacity filled.
mattlach - Sunday, August 5, 2012 - link
I support this fully.It would be good to know what exactly we can expect once the drive goes past the 50% mark.
Also, it has been stated that this is a once time calculation and reorganization of data. Does this mean that if you do a fresh install, or otherwise clear up space, you can never get the performance mode back?
We need answers to all these questions.
Bull Dog - Saturday, August 4, 2012 - link
Did power consumption change at all? I'm always interested in this metric due to the impact it can play on battery life.lbeyak - Saturday, August 4, 2012 - link
Yes, I thought in the previous Vertex 4 articles, it was mentioned that the high idle power usage would be addressed with this firmware update???Would be great to know.